Islam has two forms of power to convert unbelievers into Muslims. One is the power of fear induced by the application of deadly force, -as is seen in places where liberty is a far-off dream. One must convert, be enslaved, become a religious special-tax paying subservient subject of the Islamic state, or die.

The other powerful means of gaining new “converts” is via persuasion, logical persuasion. The logic that is employed is so persuasive because it is irrefutable. It asks a question which can only be answered in favor of the Islamic faith and its validity.

Once that question has been asked in an Islamic environment, whether in a mosque or in a nation, there is only one answer, and it is like a hook that pulls in every fence-sitting person that does not embrace atheism since they were raised in a psychological environment in which all of the adults either firmly believe in theistic concepts and Islamic tenets or are silent in non-opposition.

The proselytizer approaches a potential convert with the convert already prepared by his or her background to accept the foundation of the argument in favor of the legitimacy of Islam and Mohammed. There’s already no resistance to the belief in a God that created the world and mankind, and having done so, must have done so for some good reason with a purpose behind it (which is not relevant to the logical question to come).

All theists, including pagans, believe that the supreme deity has a strong interest in the affairs of his creation, and therefore has taken actions to point mankind in the direction that should be followed to eventually arrive at a place that is most blessed for him in this life or the next. What the deity has revealed to mankind is the correct manner in which to conduct his life, and how to avoid falling into a negative state that is displeasing, unclean and leads to darkness and destruction.

The potential convert is “pre-loaded” with the concept that such a history of the deity’s actions and words regarding human behavior has probably revealed things that may be important to them personally if logical “proof” of their realness can be shown. With that as their psychological frame of mind, the Islamist then creates an irresistible, pure platinum stone of impeccable logic which becomes the tip of a great pyramid turned upside down. All of Islamic faith rests on that single stone of logic without which the grand edifice of Islamic faith cannot be built.

He starts by referencing the fact that the creator spoke to individuals of old and that his words were recorded as originally spoken. Then, relying on the passage of aeons of time, and inevitable errors of replication and translation, misunderstandings eventually resulted. They unfortunately were accepted and adopted even though from a perspective of inerrant Truth they were heretical and apostate to that which was originally given to man by his creator.

[They were not deliberate errors but they were serious because they led man away from the Truth, -from the true path to man’s maker and the intended destiny for him. The propensity of falling into error is still very, very predominant in the beliefs of mankind and is the cause of the “errors” of heretical apostasy by sects of any and every religion that has splintered, including Islam itself, which can’t claim to be “The True Religion” since that can only be true of one single faith, and yet Islam is comprised of multiple opposing divisions, just like Christianity and Judaism.
The opponents have “clearly fallen into error” and must be opposed and even condemned for “knowingly” adhering to falsehoods and heresies. In fundamentalist Islam, that means that hundreds of millions of apostate Muslims are worthy of death.]

So what would a concerned father of the human race do in such a situation? Would he not want to get Man back on the correct path instead of just allowing him to continue on the path toward delusion and blindness?

Since it is already established and accepted that he has intervened to advise and direct mankind previously, there is thus no conceivable reason for him to constrain himself from doing so again in order to redirect his children back to the correct path so they can be rescued from living and dying in error and apostasy.

That is the set-up for the question which captures the potential convert. That question is: “Since he could do that, and would want to do that, why would he not do that?”

The logically thinking of the target of that question has only one answer, which is that he certainly would correct the erroneous record of the truth about himself and how to work one’s way toward him. Otherwise, his whole purpose in creation would result in failure. He would have to intervene in order to keep mankind on the correct path.

How would he intervene? As he had always intervened; -through a surrogate, an intermediary, a messenger. The word “angel” means messenger. So God’s means of communication is to send a heavenly messenger to give his message to a human messenger who would then share it with mankind.

He cannot deliver a message directly to all mankind because that would change the very relationship of man to his maker from that of a faith-based relationship of the heart to that of a cold intellectual knowledge that would be unrewarding to both man and his maker. So he must remain at a far, indirectly-connected distance so that man’s relationship to him will be subjective instead of coldly objective and only external.

Alternatively, one could believe that his stand-offishness is because of his Holy High & Mightiness which, like a Great King, does not allow getting directly involved in communication with his pathetically inferior subjects. He remains aloof, distant, unseen, and unapproachable.

One can absorb either reason for the supreme being to communicate solely though one mouth piece. Both make perfect sense and suit both the idea of man’s great inferiority and resulting distance from him as well as his desire for closeness to mankind. One could even combine the two based on his immaculate holiness which is a vast natural separation factor regardless of his best wishes for and love of his lowly creation.

So if there was a serious need to reach out to mankind to bring man back to the Truth and away from damaging error, then someone had to have been given access to God’s divine new clarifying revelation, and there was such a man, -a man chosen by God for that necessary communication, and his name was Joseph Smith. No wait, -I got my messengers mixed up. He was from the wrong continent and millennium.

His name was Mohammed, and he, being chosen by God, must be equated with the men of old who were also chosen by God, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. So if Mohammed was given the “recovered” truth, then it must be accepted because it is error-free, straight from God, and untainted by heretical ideas that are apostate misconceptions

If Mohammed was not God’s messenger, then who was? There is no one else that it could be so it must be true that he was the messenger of the holy Truth as delivered by God’s angel.

Once one accepts the logic that Mohammed must have been God’s chosen one, then one must and will defend the validity and veracity of Mohammed because to diminish him in any way is to diminish God’s message which he delivered to mankind, and to diminish God’s message is to diminish God himself, which is in effect equivalent to blasphemy. Thus one of the two fundamental tenets of Islam is not the message of Islam itself but the unquestionable allegiance to the messenger.

That allegiance cannot be allowed to suffer any dents whatsoever because if Mohammed can be questioned from a logical approach of curiosity and truth-seeking then any dent in his credibility puts into question the certitude of his self-elevating claim to be the divinely chosen PROPHET OF ALLAH.

No one can be allowed to question the validity of Mohammed’s claims about his person being God’s one and only True Messenger, because the first question that would be asked is: “How can one self-certify oneself?” If that would be a valid form of certification, then anyone could adopt it and certify himself to be a similarly important person or authority.

“I have been chosen by a vastly superior extraterrestrial race to be their emissary to mankind. I self-certify myself as being certifiably truthful and correct in all that I say and do on their behalf”.
“Holy Cow! He has self-certified himself, so his word must be the god’s-honest truth, and I must defer to whatever he tells me and be his faithful disciple.”

Muslims cannot allow the illogical basis of their faith to be pointed out, and so no questioning of Mohammed’s veracity and authenticity can be allowed. To defend Islam, they first and foremost must defend its creator and his veracity as the first and primary tenet of their faith.

Their faith is false and bogus if its giver is a wanna-be fake spiritual leader, a mere pretender, an imposter, so defend him fanatically they must.

Their defense is circular thinking: if Islam is the word of God (which it is of course), then Mohammed, the messenger of that word, is the genuine messenger of the Most High God and not to be questioned, doubted, or insulted with unbelief. If Mohammed is the genuine messenger of the Most High God, then Islam, his message, is not to be doubted, questioned, nor insulted with unbelief.

To fully embrace a divine origin for Islam is to embrace the veracity of he who delivered Islam to mankind. And vice versa. It’s kind of like a cat running in circles, -chasing and biting onto its own tail, one cannot escape from the circle if captured by either of its basic tenets, -unless one has an open mind and senses that their humanity is in opposition to Islam’s totalitarianism and cruelty. Such open minds are almost non-existent if judging by the number of openly anti-Islam former Muslims.

And what was the message that Mohammed promoted which, besides himself, is the central tenet of Islam? It is that there is only one God and he does not come in multiple forms. He is a single divine Supreme Being without branches or multiple heads (excluding the doctrine of the Trinity or triune God). That belief condemns all alternative doctrines, especially the Christian doctrine of a deity that is akin to Siamese triplets (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

It had one very clear advantage over “flawed” Judaism, and that was that in Judaism, the jealous God of the Hebrew people declares himself to be, in effect, the only supreme god. God was not capitalized there because the impression is clearly given in scripture that other gods exist but they were not the god of the Hebrews whom they must alone worship. The other gods were evil or unholy gods and needed to rejected and avoided.

Islam called “bunk!” on all such Old Testament scripture because no other such gods did, nor could, exist since there was ONLY ONE GOD! So in defense of the one true God, Mohammed de-legitimized the divinity of the Hebrew scripture by means of the logic that a true supreme being would never give the impression that other gods actually existed and were his competitors. Instead, he would condemn that whole concept from the beginning rather than giving the first commandment as “You shall no other gods before me.”

“Other gods? What other gods? Competing gods? There are other gods? I wonder what they’re like… maybe I should make them an offering just to make sure that they aren’t offended with me ignoring them…”

No such verses can be found in Islam since its first and foremost tenet is that there is only one God (and Mohammed is his prophet). By simply speaking those words one becomes a Muslim,…for life. Change your mind and you become apostate and condemned to death by Islam.

[no doubt, the young Barack Obama spoke those words and believed them and considered himself a Muslim since he took courses in Islamic studies as a child in Indonesia, -religious studies by devout religious teachers.]

In conclusion, even without the violent or coercive use of force to expand the Islamic Kingdom on Earth, Islam has a convert-winning logic that potential converts are unable to resist, and once they are captured by it, the full-bore fundamentalist dogma of totalitarian domination of mankind can be easily inculcated, -and like a virulent disease, it overwhelms the host’s immune system of natural humanity which does not readily accept nor endorse the use of mob coercion and totalitarian power to force others to embrace that which another has come to believe as religious doctrine. Once that natural resistance is overcome, then the doors to believing anything are opened wide.

So the basic tenets of Islam rest on a super-strong stone of logic which constitutes the inverted apex of the pyramid of Koranic beliefs, including:

-that all earlier scriptures were corrupted with the passage of time and the perversion of their messages;
-Mohammed was chosen by the one and only supreme being to set right the path to the afterlife;
-his recorded words are inerrant and divinely given and thus are not questionable;
-and by following his example and teachings, Muslims can bring about the end of the corrupt age in which we live and facilitate the coming of the Apocalypse and “the 12th Imam”, aka; the Mahdi.

And of course: martyrdom is a blessing.

by Adrien Nash Feb. 2015

~~~~~~~~~

“Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who “insult Islam.” When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62% of British Muslims say “No, it should not.”

A recent European poll found that 65% of Palestinians “support Al-Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe.”

Muslim support for terrorist attacks against civilians:

Jordan: sometimes or rarely…88%; 11% never
Lebanon: sometimes or rarely…58% ; 33% never
Pakistan: sometimes or rarely…44% , 35% never

These numbers contradict the claim that we are only dealing with a small minority of Muslims.

Today’s Islam is a pathology, and a significant portion of those who practice Islam are pathological. Sam Sewel

…”the stealth jihadists…are already eroding our freedoms as they demand ever more accommodation of Islamic principles and practices — and politically correct public officials are only too happy to oblige.

Now, in Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, Jihad expert Robert Spencer unveils the full scope of the stealth Jihad plan, and explains how the stealth Jihadists are operating and the victories they’ve already achieved.

* by taking advantage of political correctness among government and law enforcement officials to keep them from even speaking about Islamic Jihad, much less taking steps to resist it.

* by transforming public school textbooks into tracts that proselytize for Islam,
* and even by infiltrating (and being invited into) the highest levels of the American government.
* Terrorism without terror: the stealth Jihadist plan to wage a “grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”
* The main player in the stealth Jihad: the shadowy, sinister, internationally powerful Muslim Brotherhood,
* How Islamic law teaches warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers — by any means possible,
* How Islamic groups worldwide are using “hate speech” laws to try to criminalize free discussion of Islamic terrorism — even in the United States,
* How efforts at accommodation of Muslims again and again result in Islamic dominance and supremacism
* How American public school textbooks have been Islamized under the noses of education authorities — and often with their naive complicity [along with Saudi bribery and influence over textbook publishers who want to sell their books worldwide, including in the vast Islamic world.]

* Education or indoctrination? The Islamic ideological straitjacket in American universities

* Saudi money and what it buys in American universities today [as well as in the publishing world]

“Robert Spencer makes a solid case that the major threat to our way of life does not come solely from those radical Islamists who embrace violence and terrorism. It also comes also from those who do not accept that they must live side-by-side on a basis of equality with those of other faiths in a civil society and who instead work in multiple ways toward obtaining special standing for Islam in our society and, ultimately, toward theocracy. A vital wake-up call of a book.” — R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities.

In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

IftikharA said…
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual
Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims
have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their
culture. This notion of “integration”, actually means “assimilation”, by
which people generally really mean “be more like me”. That is not
multiculturalism.
~There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.

“British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different.”

note: speaking of genes and being different, it has been statistically shown that over a thousand years of Islamic tradition of in-breeding (marrying a first cousin) has resulted in a significantly higher incidence of genetic damage, including birth defects and damage to the social center of the brain, -which is in addition to the damaging impact of the satanic fascist pathology of Islam itself.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About arnash

“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason.
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their
behalf.” - George Orwell
“Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Hi Adrien. It is clear that we are in agreement regarding Islam. Our differences are at most academic. You did use the term “Islam’s … Logic,” but your use of the term is different from my term “Islamic logic.” My study, at http://thelogician.net/7_fortiori/7_chapter_11.htm, relates to the awareness and use of formal logic within the Koran (and Hadiths, though I do not go deeply into that) and in the area of “fiqh” (Islamic jurisprudence) – and that is virtually non-existent, or rare and low-level. Having read your interesting blog post (above), I gather that you are referring to the “reasoning” process that makes born Moslems (and eventually potential converts) buy into fundamentalist Islam. Certainly, the way you put it makes sense: but I am not sure that the mental process these people go through is so clear-cut as you make it. You are a person with a rational mind, whereas they are people still functioning mentally at a very unconscious level indeed. Their adherence to extremism is more of a mixed bag of emotions including fear, hate, lust and greed, rather than a rational process.

As regards your comments on Judaism, I would strongly disagree. You suggest that Judaism is not a thorough monotheism in comparison to Islam. References to “other gods” in the Bible are never intended to imply that these other deities indeed exist. The Jewish belief, even in Biblical times, and all the more so in later times and at the time when Islam came into being, is that these other gods are figments of the imaginations of their believers. When these gods are to be “defeated” or “destroyed” the intent is that these believers are to be shown that their gods are non-existent.

On the contrary, Islam’s god “Allah” was originally an Arabian moon-god, and for a while Mohamed adhered to him non-exclusively and he was not sure whether it would be most convenient to his cause to admit other Arabian gods by his side or to go all out for monotheism. This is not my own pet theory, but information available in expert sources. Being very busy, I let you look for it by yourself (but let me know if you really cannot find it). Judaism discovered monotheism long before Islam. Islam simply imitated this premise, preferring it to the Christian idea that God came to earth in human form (which is found as you know in Indian religions too).

Nevertheless, it is correct to call Islam a Judeo-Christian sect since it derives from both these religions, though it went its own crooked, nutty way as soon as it formed. What it lacked most from the outset was both humanity and logic. It is not only inhumane but also markedly illogical. The problem with its adherents is not that they are logical, but that they lack intelligence and kindness.

“You suggest that Judaism is not a thorough monotheism in comparison to Islam.” No, I suggested that it is not presented as thoroughly monotheistic due to what is lacking in many verses which fail to indicate that the forbidden gods are not gods at all but mere fantasies. That opening to the possibility that other gods may be real although forbidden is seen in the first commandment. It is also seen the the later-life apostasy of Solomon who made sacrifices not to figments of his imagination but to other gods.

Mohammed, on the other hand, made a mountain out of the issue of there being only one single solitary deity and no others. Of course he ended up creating two completely different and contradictory Allahs. So which one is the real Allah and which verses are the ones that represent him? Answer: they all represent him because he is like some illogical combination of dark and light, good and bad, love and hate, and you must accept his self-contradictions or die an apostate’s death. NO THINKING ALLOWED! LEAVE YOUR BRAIN AT THE DOOR! IT’S NOT WELCOME IN THE MOSQUE.

“No, I suggested that it is not presented as thoroughly monotheistic due to what is lacking in many verses which fail to indicate that the forbidden gods are not gods at all but mere fantasies.” – thanks for this clarification. There’s no doubt that the Scriptures are not entirely clear on this issue – so much so that Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed feels the need to explain that the references to other gods are figurative, not to be taken literally. But well before him, many rabbis, and prophets before them, have made this clear. Certainly, many Jews (like Solomon at some stage) were not too clear on this matter! That is why their teachers sought to clarify things for them.

As regards Mohammed, I repeat what I said before – at first Mohammed was going to allow for worship of other gods side by side with Allah. I think there’s evidence of this in the Koran (or was it in Hadiths?). I do not remember exactly where, but I do remember this being pointed out convincingly by different commentators in the books I read on the subject.

As for “leaving your brain at the door of the mosque” – this is exactly and truly the Moslem attitude. There was in early centuries (9th-13th, say) some effort of free philosophical thought – but from the first there was a strong reaction by fundamentalist and at the end of the day they won a total victory – so much so that all dissenting voices were shut up till the 19th century, when again a reaction quickly smothered dissent (and they are still in that reactionary phase).

Yes, the current problem with independent thought in Islam is that the nail that sticks up from the floor boards gets hammered down. No discussion of what is “well settled” in Islamic doctrine can be allowed nor tolerated because any deviation is immediately labeled as apostasy, which it may actually be since any sane approach to human morality, spirituality and religion would run counter to the criminal mind-set of Mohammed’s Islam.